Will Obama refer to Kashmir in public in India?

October 30, 2010

fayazaward2Will President Barack Obama make some public remarks on Kashmir during his trip to India next month?

At a White House press briefing, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes refused to be pinned down on specifics,  beyond saying that the United States would continue to express support for India and Pakistan to pursue talks.

“I wouldn’t — I don’t want to get into prefacing with precision what his comments are, in part because he’ll be answering a lot of questions there in the town hall and press conference and we haven’t — we’re still working through his remarks on certain things,” he said.

Yet it is a question that cannot — and will not — be left to chance.

Indian is deeply sensitive about foreign visitors talking about Kashmir — as British foreign ministers have learned to their cost on earlier trips. It regards Kashmir as an integral part of India and refuses even to recognise the territory at the heart of more than 60 years of enmity with Pakistan as disputed. Moreover, it has consistently rejected outside interference, saying that its disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally.

Obama, who raised hackles in India during his presidential election campaign by suggesting the Washington should try to help resolve the Kashmir dispute, is hoping to use the trip to help U.S. business tap into India’s growing economy. With a flagging economy at home, he cannot afford to offend his hosts.

But at the same time, the biggest foreign policy challenge of his administration is over how to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The war in Afghanistan cannot be ended without Pakistan’s help. And Pakistan itself faces serious instability — potentially a much bigger worry than Afghanistan with its 180 million people and nuclear bombs. Pakistan’s identity in turn is intimately bound up with India – its past support for Islamist militants was driven by its belief that this was the only way to neutralise the influence of its much bigger neighbour both in Kashmir and in Afghanistan.  Depending on who you listen to, it either will not, or can not, tackle Islamist militants based in Pakistan without a peace settlement with India, including on Kashmir.

According to Bruce Riedel, who advised Obama on his Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, “it will be Pakistan that dominates the private conversations between the president, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, because it is the future of Pakistan that is the most uncertain question in South Asia today. Pakistan has become the most dangerous country in the world for everyone, but especially for America and India. It is the epicentre of the global jihadist movement … The army remains the patron of parts of the jihadist Frankenstein even as it fights other parts of the monster,” he writes in The Times of India.  “All this, and the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world.”
“Obama’s visit will also take place against the backdrop of the revival of the Kashmir question. Pakistan will surely move to capitalise on the unrest. The intifada that exploded this summer in Kashmir cannot be ignored by the president during the visit but any comments on it will be potentially explosive,” he adds.
As U.S. president, whose every word will be closely scrutinised, Obama does not have the option of simply avoiding any public use of the word Kashmir, as his special adviser for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has tried to do. Not mentioning it will be as remarked upon as mentioning it.
Yet there is little sign of progress either in resolving the dispute, or of improving relations more broadly between India and Pakistan.  India broke off talks with Pakistan after the November 2008 attack on Mumbai — an attack which ended Obama’s presidential election hopes of a peace deal between the two which might make his task easier in Afghanistan.  As of today, it is not clear whether he has a fall-back plan.
After a flurry of peace efforts in mid-2009 India and Pakistan have settled into a diplomatic limbo – their latest attempt at engagement, a meeting of the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers in July, ended in acrimony. The two countries have not been this far apart since 2001/2002 when they nearly went to war over a December 2001 attack on India’s parliament.  And the Indian government’s efforts to engage with Kashmiris themselves also appear to have fallen flat.
It is hard to see how Obama can end this deadlock without some fairly muscular diplomacy that spills out into his use of language in public during his visit to India. Yet equally, it is hard to imagine that a president who needs to shore up his image and his country’s economy at home, can take the risk of speaking out about Kashmir in public in India. Many words will be written in South Asia about how he resolves that conundrum.
And meanwhile the people of Kashmir have other reasons for anxiety.  When then U.S. president Bill Clinton visited India in 2000, 35 Sikhs in the village of  Chittisingpura in Kashmir were massacred to draw attention to the dispute.  The big worry, is that something like that happens again
(Reuters photo by Fayaz Kabli)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

[...] Obama say the word “Kashmir” in public in India? India: A billion aspirations This entry was posted in Global News and tagged India, Kashmir, Obama, public, refer. Bookmark [...]

“Will Obama refer to Kashmir in public in India?”

He probably will but very very tactfully. However, it wil,l as Reidel mentions, be discussed in detail in private. As will terror and Pakistan and US Aid to that country- the fruit of which is going to be eventually used against India post July 2011.

“Moreover, it has consistently rejected outside interference, saying that its disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally.”

Myra, these two countries have a signed document known as the Shimla Agreement in which they have agreed to settle this issue, dispute as you would like it called, bilaterally. As Reuters’ resident expert on India and Pakistan I am sure you are aware of this already.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive

Kashmir will be Afghanistan if its independent !

If at all Kashmir achieves independence, it shall be a Taliban country within 2 months. Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Let, Jaish-e-Mohammed cadres shall flock every street in Kashmir. Kashmiris will be flogged for not wearing burqa, Kashmiris shall be executed in the streets, Kashmiris will be killed by suicide Taliban bombers, Kashmiri schools shall be blasted by the Taliban, Kashmiri people shall not have food to eat, water to drink as everything shall be destroyed by the Taliban, Osama shall make his home in Kashmir and US drones shall attack Kashmir from all sides and after all these, Kashmiris shall have only one thing with them – Arundhati Roy\’s books to read. Go ahead kashmiris support your separatist leaders like the Geelanis, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Yasin Malik and all and invite – DOOMS DAY !

Posted by VINNEL | Report as abusive

Obama is going to say that the US is very interested in amity between India and Pakistan and that the US does not have any interest in interfering in a bilateral settlement of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. This is a very non-committal and political statement. He will say it only when he is pressed hard on it by reporters.

At the same time, he is not going to condemn Pakistan the way the British PM did when he visited Bangalore. A lot is at stake for the US on both sides. If he favors Pakistan, the US gets to lose huge defense contracts and business ventures in India. There is a talk of advanced F16 fighters being sold to India. This is multi-billion dollar business that will bring jobs to American defense industries. Obama will be looking for a way to counter China’s heavy weight by pumping in more business transactions with India. China can pull the rug from the feet of the US is it is pressurized hard. And the civil nuclear business is another avenue which offers huge potential for American companies like GE and Western Electric.

And Pakistan is important to the US at the same time. It simply cannot run its war logistics without Pakistan’s help. It needs air bases for its drones. It needs Pakistan’s roads to move supplies into Afghanistan. Currently without Pakistan, the US simply cannot control the war or settlement in Afghanistan. We might see a huge economic aid or waiver thrown in favor of Pakistan just before Obama’s visit to India. This is to keep the Pakistanis happy.

Obama is very good at delivering balanced replies. It’s a piece of cake for him.

Kashmir issue will remain the same. It is the issue that has helped Pakistan survive all these years by keeping its public attention away from all the ills inside. Without Kashmir issue, Pakistan might have collapsed long ago. India as the enemy forms the foundation of Pakistan. If Kashmir issue did not exist, its military rulers would have found some other excuse to keep that enmity alive. Even if India settles Kashmir, there is no guarantee that Pakistan will lower its guard. Therefore from an Indian stand point there is no use settling the Kashmir issue in a hurry to impress the Americans. As India is gaining economic strength, Kashmir issue will be buried as a geo-strategic matter overweighed by long term business and strategic interests. It is for the same reason Pakistan’s terrorist activities and proxy wars against India during the 1990s till the Mumbai attacks did not get much international support for India.

To help India means to lose Pakistan’s support in WOT. Now to favor Pakistan means losing vital business and defense contracts with India. Kashmir is stuck at the fulcrum of these two major counter-weights. So it will stay there as it is. Once in a while Pakistan will try to instigate some kind of a commotion in Indian occupied Kashmir and the balance will see-saw for sometime and settle again to the status quo.

The US is already handling sensitive issues in other parts of the world – Israel/Palestine issue, Turkey/Kurdish issue, Taiwan, Tibet etc. Kashmir will be in that list. A business minded US will not mess with India’s interests at this time as it has become a major economic power in South Asia and the world.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

Just as George Mitchell have achieved no sucess in Middle East, just as Palestine issue remains unresolved and nothing has been done to stop Israel from building illegal jewish settlements on disputed occupied territory. There will be diplomatic failure in US policy towards South Asia too.
For Pakistan there is no choice but to maintain a ‘minimum credible nuclear detterence’ against India. Even if it means the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenal. Existing fleet of F-16 fighter jets must recieve Upgrade, as new batch of F-16s join the Air Force. Pakistan must keep pushing for modernizing conventional forces. Expect nothing from Obama’s visit, for India and Pakistan priorities are different.

And never mind the designation of world’s most dangerous country. BTW, during election campaigns all politicians use slogans to gain votes. Obama too called for resolution of Kashmir dispute at that time. But being in power, looking forward for re-election for second term, expading business/economic ties with India, now obama’s priorities are different.

From Pakistan’s point of view, unless the disputes with India are resolved there will be no progress on ‘certain issues’.

Good luck and peace to all!

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive

” There is a talk of advanced F16 fighters being sold to India.”

-Welcome to the party though you are late, and now you should get used to being sold fighter planes and later delivery of spare parts stopped. BTW, the deal is to sell India C-17 globemaster transport planes which will purely benefit the US as India already has IL-76 transporters. And instead of F-16s maybe more advanced jets would be offered to India like the F-35s which are very expensive, require maintenance contracts and technical and flying training programs. Good chunk of money will go to US Defense contractors, the military-industrial complex will get even richer.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive

[...] Obama say the word “Kashmir” in public in India? Pakistan: Now or Never? This entry was posted in Global News and tagged India, Kashmir, Obama, public, refer. Bookmark [...]

Umairpk: “Welcome to the party though you are late, and now you should get used to being sold fighter planes and later delivery of spare parts stopped. BTW, the deal is to sell India C-17 globemaster transport planes which will purely benefit the US as India already has IL-76 transporters. And instead of F-16s maybe more advanced jets would be offered to India like the F-35s which are very expensive, require maintenance contracts and technical and flying training programs. Good chunk of money will go to US Defense contractors, the military-industrial complex will get even richer.”

There is a difference between sales to Pakistan vis-a-vis sales to India. In the case of Pakistan, the US President had to confirm to the senate that Pakistan was not building nukes and that Pakistan did not have the capability to retrofit the F-16s with nuke delivery mechanisms. Until the end of the first Afghan war in 1988, the US put up with Pakistan’s secret activities and as soon as that was over, the Pressler agreement and other restrictions came into play. Having been an irresponsible nation in regards to nuclear non-proliferation, Pakistan has been looked at with suspicion and as an unreliable country. Hence the delays and withdrawals towards Pakistan.

In the case of India, the situation is very different. It has enough money in stock to buy advanced fighter planes. If the F16s are not available, India can get the MIGs or Sukhois or Mirages. It is pure competition to sell advanced weapons. And it will be used against China if the need arises. In the case of Pakistan F16s would have found use only against India, which has now become a US ally on economic as well as political fronts. The deals made with India will be very different from that for Pakistan. There is no senate verification or certification needed by the US President to sell arms to India, unlike the case of Pakistan. It is purely a business deal.

India’s air-force has more than 50% outdated and obsolete hardware. Hence India is shopping for modern equipment. Defense sales is a huge business. All cold war powers – US, UK, France, Russia and China have indigenous infrastructure to make their own tanks, fighter jets, frigates, destroyers, nuclear subs and other advanced weapon systems. India needs to get into this league in order to reduce its reliance on foreign supply and build a potential market for itself. India has done well in Satellite launching technology. Indo-US co-operation might go in the direction of joing defense development to reduce overall costs in the future. This will help the US maintain its lead while help India learn to develop advanced technology for defense. This is a win-win situation for India.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

Something good is happening in Kashmir on its own. Indian interlocutors have opened up to Kashmiris. They have included “Azadi” as an option to consider. One of the interlocutors has even said that Pakistan has a part to play in settling the issue.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ar ticle861353.ece?homepage=true

Things have to happen. We cannot go on and on forever like children. No one has to mediate from outside. We all should be able to do it ourselves as mature adults. It is time people grew up in South Asia.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

india has probably sought an exit from kashmir valley for 50 years; and made many efforts- who stopped pakistan from cooperating for a plebiscite 48-51? its pakistan that dishonoured its shimla 72 commitment and appears to have reneged on the back channels deal negotiated with musharraf.why should resolution be at pakistans favoured time frame?
the problems- exiting is fraught with a number of risks including political risks for the govt of the day (which are great but least of the risks), there are no meaningful incentives on offer that can be implemented (not a post dated cheque subject to chinese assent on unsc) or free of commercial benefits to the west (and thus possibilities independent of any indian concession) and in any case pakistan will veto something ‘big’ for india; theres likely to be no agreement on exit modality as pakistan and kashmiris in the valley will claim over 2/3 of Kashmir based on religious majority while the reality is (tacitly admitted by pakistan in separating northern areas from so called ‘azad’ kashmir in pok)is that each region of j&k is distinct and some sparsely populated areas have vast territory; certainly buddhist ladakh, partly shia kargil, uninhabited siachen, hindu jammu udhampur have no desire to separate from india or for any special status; within the valley some space would have to be carved out for minority shias, pandits, sikhs, christians who wish to remain in india; if the issue is fairness this would be the maximum entitlement of those seeking to secede; on moral grounds nothing more can be sought; in any case theres no morality left after letting pakistan annex afghanistan and china tibet, turkey the kurds, spain the basques etc; this ‘moth eaten’ but fair kashmir wouldnt be accepted by either pakistan or sunni kashmiris in the valley;
then apart from a few like geelani and a few in uri other sunni kashmiris would probably favour independence; this was vetoed by pakistan at the time of unsc reolution in 48 itself; so wheres the agreement? and if no agreement, then no peace can result; and the china factor- pakistan is believed to have promised ladakh, siachen and more of northern areas as a reward for supporting its claim; suppose pakistan allows a nominally independent valley who will secure it vs pakistani subversion and annexation a la afghanistan? a nato which is running away from afghanistan? not india (nor transit through india for nato); and no refugeeship or return to india later from kashmiris who opt out but are later dissapointed by reality; moreover, kashmir is the alibi for and not the cause of pakistani neuroses and aggression vis a vis india and this is increasingly understood by most observors. thus the west can’t even deliver peace with pakistan to india as a consequence of any such exit; or even an end to ‘asymmetric’ terrorism from pakistan; will nato commit irrevocably to nuke pakistan if it continues its agression if india exits the valley?
it appears the valley leans towards independence rather than pakistan; once they realise that pakistan will never really accept this nor can nato (no will to accept bodycounts and other costs of war) any longer guarantee their sovereignty vs pakistan they may well accept pre-53 status for the valley (with unfettered contact on indias side with pok and similar restrictions on property and settling by kashmiris in rest of former j&k and india as apply to others in kashmir); if india hadnt hesitated in partitioning indian j&k (to maintain its multicultural fabric) this could ve been delivered years ago and the present unrest avoided.
kashmir really has been an alibi for pakistans rogue behaviour, an alibi for western support or tolerance of it and a stick with which to beat an ‘uppity’ india and sympathy and pressure on india a carrot by the west for pakistan.
roys recent comments also indicate that isi has achieved its sought after link with indian naxals;
yielding ground will only whet isi’s appetite for more and encourage them , since they have the west where they want them and eager to appease isi’s terms, to go for india’s jugular and we can only expect a tremendous increase in terrorism and even nuclear attack if india yields any ground at this stage.
if and when pakistan implodes or gives up its rogue behaviour, unlikely though it is, india can seek azadi from the valley and cut it loose.
however, many western commentators now favour appeasement of pakistan. if obama does bring private or public pressure on india on this the visit may best be avoided or the damage it would do indo-american relations for the years ahead is incalculable-worse than nixon.
india should stick by its strong legal (though not so strong moral) position and swallow again the pressure and propoganda even at the cost of a bad visit by lame duck obama.
as for usa weapons india is better off doing without them and looking to russia, france, israel, rsa, singapore, south korea, germany, sweden, spain, italy, and brazil as weapons sources/development partners rather than unreliable usa or uk; we should seek to develop economic relations with usa/uk (subject to the constraints imposed by their export controls which it is for them to decide on);
strategic partnerships require deep political concensus and this is more likely with russia, israel, france, germany, asean, maybe japan and korea than with usa or uk.
also we should focus on securing our interests and friends in nepal and srilanka rather than be distracted by this issue that can never be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Posted by buntyj | Report as abusive

Obama is not a diplomat and is likely to say which neither the Indian or Pakistani Govt. is going to appreciate. Unless, ofcourse like the irish saying goes the lady in pink has already given him a prepared text on Kashmir, approved by no one other than her husband bill clinton.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

American first time voters were fooled by yes, we can professor, but not the second time. Mr obama is out on free travel to countries that he alwasy dreamt about, he claims to admire the non violent gandhi doctrine. He wants to understand the mysterious contridiction, having nuclear weapons and more weapons instead of the simple food which most mouths in India need.

This is the philosaphy Mr Obama wants to learn from the Indians, the nonviolence he can preach to the palestinians and the ovrpowering military to remain a credible military power.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@Pakistan, Umair,

I believe in giving Kashmiri’s, both Pok and IoK Kashmiri’s fully independence.

For this to happen, Pakistan MUST reign in all militant assets and destroy them, I don’t care if it risks civil war or not, that is Pak Army problem created by their own devices.

Kashmir must not be destroyed or swallowed up by Pak Punjabi settlers and Pathans. In this respect, India has not destroyed Kashmiri culture, despite the Indian ARmy crackdowns.

Kashmiri independence, must be a part of a greater comprehensive regional strategy to financially unify Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and others as a fully democratic, militant and terrorism free S. Asian manufacturing AND service industry powerhouse, as a counterweight to China.

S. Asia has the potential for the greatest peace, greatest economic power and the potential for the greatest regional neighbourhood of fully democratic nations, that are productive and prosperous.

Pindi boyz are the biggest impedement to progress for the S. Asian subcontinent because they keep going to bed with the Chinese.

Pakistani’s claim to be a democracy, but fail to realize that the Communists, they treat everbody equal, equally worthless, that is.

As long as Pakistan does not join India in creating a better future, the Kashmiri’s will continue to suffer, all minorities across S. Asia, will continue to work against regional progress and they will keep enabling the godless heretical Chinese to progress.

There is no need Umair, to keep American contractors rich, your pindi boyz are bed mates with the large contractors and do their job by maintaining enmity and political gridlock to never solve any thing, with the whole point to sell weapons to both India and Kashmir.

Kashmir can be solved and all issues with India, again, Pindi boyz don’t want peace and keep dragging all the muslims in S. Asia through the mud.

You know, regardless of religion, culturally and biologically, we are actually, truly, the largest and biggest family in the world. As a family member, we will keep extending the olive branch, but Pindi boyz keep fxxking up any chance for peace, as they do not want it.

Search your heart and your mind, you are a fairly smart guy, you know that this is true.

There is no real reason why every muslim, hindu, christian, jew, sikh and other religions cannot be happy and prosper communally working together. There are more similarities that differences,which is why it continues to baffle me why Pakistan is working hand in claw with the Chinese. The Chinese only care to work Pakistan against India and do just enough to keep pakistan on life support. India would do 100x as much as China, if your Pindi boyz set aside their selfish ambitions and chose to re-create a new bold vision for a prosperous, democratic Pakistan. It can happen.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

With regards to previous comment, Pindi boyz must unclench their fist and be even better men and embrace brotherhood with India, if that happens, watch the Chinese stare in utter horror and disbelief!

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

The first sentence in your commentry is pretty straightforward for the kashmiris, and a fair minded person could go along with it. But the subsequent details have at least confused me, particularly about China. What has China got to do with Kashmir? Are you proposing to create an anti-China alliance? Forget it!

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive


In my view Obama cannot escape without saying K word, and he better not for his and America’s image. He will say it and will play it safe, saying several things in one breath—-Kashmir issue must be tackled with diplomamcy not guns. He is fond of “diplomacy”. He will perhaps give India a pat at the back for recent efforts (Padgaonkar led team of interlocutors), which are very timely!

Posted by rehmat | Report as abusive

@”Will President Barack Obama make some public remarks on Kashmir during his trip to India next month?”


Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive

@Rex Minor,

NO! I am not suggesting an Anti China alliance. I am highlighting the fact that S. Asia is so blinded with infighting and fighting each other, so of it generously stoked by the Chinese, by applying effort to have regional neighbours like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and others to work against India.

It is the undoing and short sightedness and short attention span of S.Asia countries, especially Pakistan, that is enabling the Chinese to work all S. Asian countries against each other, geopolitically and economically speaking.

I am saying, why cannot S. Asia do what the CHinese do? I am not advocating and anti-chinese stance here.

I am advocating a S. Asian Union stance to address all Social and regional issues and create formal peace agreements. In doing so, huge prosperity and much peace will come to all S. asian nations, if they work together, instead of fighting with each other.

China has been working tirelessly to destablizie the S. Asian region for decades, as a part of their “Art of War” philosophy.

Currently India provides much service like call centres and so forth, but there is no reason why S. Asia cannot become a manufacturing powerhouse to rival the Chinese.

We really have to wake up and see the huge potential we have to succeed and succeed we can, if we chose to seize peace.

I ask you Rex, Umair, Others, what do you have in common with the Chinese? Food? Culture? Language? History? Democracy? Religion? …none of that, except hatred and animosity towards India.

All of your energy applied is backwards energy and has not yielded lasting peace, but only more fighting, anger, more spending on military hardware and nxkes to fight each other’s armies, while average people continue to suffer.

Let’s relief the average person’s suffering in S. Asia and give true real peace a chance, why not??!?! Your short sightedness is keeping your people ignorant and sending all all of the jobs to China, there is no reason why S. Asian community of nations cannot manufacture and provide services, that it already does, for the west.

Kashmir is the unfortunate collateral damage of the damaged relations between Pakistan and India. Pakistan must realize that if it makes peace with India, other countries will follow, militantism cannot thrive and together we can progress our people to a higher plane, while you can still embrace your sense of identity and pride, without working against each other. With progress, will come new incentives a renewed sense of purpose for each country and the hope of a better future. What is wrong with peace?

Is it not time to redefine ourselves outside of our damaged pasts? While we can’t forget it, trying to fix things in the present configuration will only cause us all to run in circles, generating the same results.

If all S. Asian nations unify economically and make peace, new incentives will arise and the current incentives will wash away like sand on the beach and a new S. Asian vision can be formed.

What do you Pakistani’s say about that?….or do you just want to do the less courageous and easier to do thing and just keep hating India, because you are told that you should by your Political and religious leaders ???

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

Many of you may disagree with me here, but I believe I have hit the nail on the head and provided an “out” for many issues to be resolved between S. Asian countries. After having really thought deeply, this is one of the best ways to resolve many disputes in the S.Asian region.

It is this S. Asian peace and unity which terrifies the Chinese. They are working hard to encircle India, to stop any chance of S. Asian peace. That is a part of their goal, to keep Asian nations fighting, to destroy any competition now or in the future.

Let’s not let S. Asian countries be pawns any further, have we not lived under the “divide and conquer” facade long enough?

Let’s ask again to Pakistani’s are you ready for peace? Peace will create new incentives, beyond anything you may have imagined.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive


Thanks for bringing this point up afresh. I have been shouting myself hoarse about a South Asian Federation to rival China, but it appears no one from the Pakistani side wants to listen. Kashmir has blinded them to possibilities that will give them greatness they cannot dream of today.

I recently heard the saying, “Meri chahe bhains mar jaaye, saamnewale ka katta zaroor marna chahiye” (The neighbour’s calf must die even if my buffalo dies too). This fondness for cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face seems to be the undoing of Pakistanis. We will go down the tubes, but we will not make peace with India and prosper until we humiliate them and wrest Kashmir back.

I have to sadly conclude that they will see sense only when they inch even closer to the abyss. Even the devastation of the floods has not sobered them.

(Rex Minor, by his own statement, is not a Pakistani but a European citizen, so I would suggest his comments are less relevant to this discussion. It’s the opinion of Pakistanis like Umair that counts. Do these guys see the crossroads they’re at?)

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

@Ganesh Prasad
I agree with your comments, but as a citizen of the world like you, China is the most important country for the world economy and no European would want your 20th century stance on alliances which are created to divide the sphere of influence which the chinese call it hegemony. I would certainly be interested to know the views of Umair!

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

“Thanks for bringing this point up afresh. I have been shouting myself hoarse about a South Asian Federation to rival China”

I have a problem with word ‘rival’ in your thesis above. Why ‘rival’?? Why not ‘friends’?? China has already renounced its claims on Sikkim state of India to showcase its increased interest in business ties with India. So why ‘rival’ China?? If you can imagine Pakistan befriending India then why not China?? In my opinion Pakistan will never, repeat, NEVER, befriend India and not because of common people like Umair but because of their wretched government machinery that is surviving on just lies, lies and more lies. If national television PTV in Pakistan spreads lies and hatred against India then I don’t know how you can imagine friendship between India and Pakistan. Let just Pakistanis fight internally with each other into a perpetual war in name of finding purest form of Islam. Let their own ‘Islamic’ bomb destroy their own ‘Islamic’ nation. Let people like Rex know what blind faith and blind hatred can lead to. Pakistanis have their own ass to blame.

See India and China are like Elephant and Dragon. Can any one kill any other?? NO. Can they work together?? May be. China can be factory of world then why can’t be India become service hub of the world. And why would manufacturer fight with service provider? Yes there are tensions but things are moving in right direction?

Think Hard!

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive

Faith in God is never blind! Faith in people is always blind and tend to cause disappointments.
Demnant quod non intellegunt, THEY CONDEMN WHAT THEY DO NOT COMPREHEND:

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@Rex Minor,

Pardon my french, but you are a fxxken thxck skulled buffxxn! You have nothing, new, creative or good to offer here.

You want to keep enmity with India, at all costs. It is thinking like yours, that drags millions to their deaths.

Thoughts and words can kill and rest assured, thoughts and words like yours will murder millions of innocents in the future to come, if you continue this unwavering, unclenching determination to keep enmity with reason and rationality. At the end of the day, you do not serve to embrace and procreate ideas of creation, love and knowledge, your words serve to divide, destroy, hate and destruct. Just please take note of that.

I may seem just a little emotional here, with the uncompromising despotic tyrants like you, who speak eloquently, but advocate war and separation between peoples, this will lead to many, many more innocents suffering in Pakistan, India and other countries, while breathing much more life into separatist movements by creating chaotic, unproductive results, producing unhappiness for the many.

For this, you are on the side of evil and your type of thinking result in failure as your type of thinking leads many to a negative end. There is no other way to desribe your creed, it is uncompromising, irrational and has no redeeming qualities to provide anything positive towards humanity. There is a complete and utter lack of brotherly love, communion and forward motion to bring about advancement.

I believe my solution, same as Ganesh’s brings about the greatest relief to all who want a better standard of life, who want peace with their neighbours, a renewed sense of national pride, while embracing hope for a better future and a sense of dignity.

I suggest you take yourself and anyone like you to another planet, perhaps Venus or Mars will be to your liking. There is no music, no joy, no interfaith communion, no cultural beauty there to distract you from your creative image of heaven. Feel free to leave at your convenience, the rest of the world wants peace. Perhaps the martians or venetians will embrace your vision. Jeez.

Let me offer a simple YES or NO answer question for you. Do you want uncondition peace, YES or NO?

If your answer is no, please leave the blog and don’t come back.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

@777, Ganesh,

As long as Indians are working hard and progressing and working to address all of their issues through democracy, India will continue to take the higher road.

History will side with India, time will show that Indians spent their energy advancing, educating, socially integrating all peoples through its own unique version of democracy. I can’t say Pakistan will even come close in 100years to do even a fraction what India has done, that is for Pakistani’s to decide, what kind of people they want to be known as.

Success is ensured to India, with democracy, good demographics, quickly traveling innovative ideas and a strong entrepreneurial spirit. The will to compromise, be different, be friendly, secular and inclusive is beyond the puny minds of some here.

India is by no means perfect and no country ever is, nor will it ever be, there will always be some degree of social strife, simply due to such a huge population, but it is undeniable, through dozens of oppressive invasions, subversion by the colonialists, it is truly quite beautiful and awesome where India has come since the end of British rule.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

I have a feeling in my stomach that you are sincere and therefore your rhetoric takes a secondry place. Please address the Kashmiri people as well and do not stipulate pre-conditions or include global issues.
The ball has been with the Indian Govt. for a long time and instead of a referandum they moved in a powerful military to suppress the citizens. How on earth India is going to control the generation of young kashmiris who have learnt nothing but resistance?
rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@777, Ganesh,

Leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and other countries need to meet and attempt to forge a new vision for their people. It will remain to be seen, if Pakistan is ready for peace with anybody, let alone with itself.

There is a lack of a cohesive, collective vision. All social issues can be addressed as people are lifted out of poverty through jobs provided by an educated population that provides service and manufacturing. People will have purpose and fill their bellies at night with good food, rather than religious rhetoric and hatred. Education and jobs will moderate people and put the extremists out of business.

I have a vision that one day, like a unified Europe, S. Asia will embrace such a vision and lift all peoples from the current divided, confused and stagnant state they live in. There would be zero militantism of any kind and little to no sectarian animosity. There will be no religious oppression, or will religion try to keep people oppressed, divided and stupid. People will chose to be free sprited human beings, capable of making their own choices, free from being used as separatist or militant fodder, stoked by outside forces. An awakened population cannot be misused by anybody.

High speed trains will connect all of S. Asia and large national armies will become a thing of the past, as they pack their hardware into museums and the future children stare in awe at how backwards S. Asian once was, with all of its useless bickering and fighting.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

At the risk of sounding naive,crazy and vain, I believe a vision like this is noble and just and warrants serious discussion as a way to seek peace on all issues.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

Your vision is a noble one! Do you reckon you have a single political Indian leader on board, who would go along with your proposal of PEACE WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS?

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@Rex Minor,

You might be right, but do you reckon you have any Pakistani politicians (aka Pak Army brass), that do not envision peace without a large war or stealing of land from India, or happiness for Pakistani’s at the expense of making Indians unhappy, via proxy militantism in Kashmir?

You are absolutely right, Indian politicians need better vision than what they have and Pakistani ones don’t even have a vision. Their only vision of peace is one created through oppression and war with non-muslims.

I advocate freedom of Kashmiri’s, through a comprehensive regional free trade agreement, comprehensive regional stewarding towards demilitarization, comprehensive stewarding towards de-militantization as well.

As incohesive as Indian politicians may seem, regardless of their short sighted ways, as a whole, Indians are hungry for progress and peace.

The only precondition for peace should be that BOTH PAKISTAN AND INDIA completely remove, drawdrawn and cease and decist all military presence. Pakistan must comply with all 1948 resolutions and remove all militants, camps and settlers and both sides leave Kashmir completely and take Kashmir back to its territorial lines, expected by Kashmiri’s upon partition.

You watch Rex Minor. Peace will come, once Pakistani’s and Indians sign a comprehensive peace agreement to bilaterally leave Kashmir.

I think India would be willing, but knows that Pakistani brass will capitalize on the situation and lie and occupy all of Kashmir for themselves. That situation is unacceptable to anybody. Complete and honest removal by both countries is the most acceptable precondition.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

@Rex Minor,

BTW, don’t focus too much on the impediments of peace, this just prolongs the political gridlock and the status quo and provides convenient excuses to not do anything and just sit on the warm chair that you have.

I guarantee you this: if Pakistan will generate one or two honest brokers of true peace, I guarantee you 1000%, India will generate ten times the men of peace to reciprocate in kind. In this respect, Pakistan has always been the one falling short in the peace department. Pakistan wants peace by creating war first and forcing other side to live with distressed consequences.

I am saying that Kashmiri’s can have peace if India and Pakistan agree to settle the dispute by both leaving Kashmir behind and agree in principle to end this and work out all the details, all under third party supervision.

Pakistan has nothing really to offer Kashmiri’s except their flag and ravenous creed to erase Kashmiri culture from the face of the earth.

Kashmiri’s are muslims whether they are fully independent or a part of Pakistan. The only way that they can be fully happy is complete removal of Pakistan and India from Kashmir and become a politically neutral territory, as this will bring an end to the dispute.

The rest of the details are rectifiable over time.

In Pakistan’s present course and situation, the only closest thing to purveyors of peace in Pakistan are the so-called “fifth column” writers that are continuously black balled as traitors, because they advocate awakening of Pakistani’s and they ask Pakistani’s to think first and act, rather than living a mentally subverted existence at the hands of religious tyranny.

It is time for India and Pakistan to sit down and discuss complete sovereignty of Kashmir. As I said, India is most likely willing to put their foot forward, as long as Pakistan leaders show honest will to stop fomenting separatist movements and asymmetrical warfare.

In this respect, the United States, large UN presence has to take some initial backbone to lead and to help initiate the process.

Peace is possible, as long as Pakistan leaves Kashmir, India would follow. India wants fairness and transparancy.

The status quo is not working for anybody. New solutions must be contemplated.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

In all fairness to Kashmiri’s, I hope Barack Obama will call on Pakistan and India to vacate Kashmir in its whole entirety.

Concurently, all economic and military aid, the IMF, all conditions should be used to leverage Pakistan withdrawal from Kashmir and India MUST do the same at the same time, as Pakistan delivers, so must India.

All 1948 resolutions must be complied with. Get New Delhi and Rawalpind to sign off peace agreement and initiate de-escalation of nuclear weapons deployment against each other.

I realize that Barack Obama talked a big game when he came into office. He is not willing to put his neck on the line and be a real cowboy of peace.

S. Asian people are hungry for peace and tired of war and economic chaos. Peace will bring economic prosperity to Pakistani’s, Kashmiris and all other countries in S.Asia.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

G-W: “In all fairness to Kashmiri’s, I hope Barack Obama will call on Pakistan and India to vacate Kashmir in its whole entirety.”

The aftermath of Kashmir’s secession from both India and Pakistan will not bring any long lasting peace to the region, especially India. Look at what Pakistan has done with Afghanistan. Instead of one Pakistan, we will see two Pakistans sitting right next to India. I do feel sorry for the natives of Kashmir. They are victims of a geo-political war. And China will thrust its influence a lot more against India, if Kashmir separates. My opinion is – now is not the time. First of all Pakistan has to be settled into a responsible nation before others are allowed to live in peace in the neighborhood. To settle Pakistan, its military has to be detoxed entirely. The military-intelligence-militant infrastructure in Pakistan will turn Kashmir into another Mullah infested dictatorship that will turn its guns against India. It is better to leave the Indian military in there for now and allow them to handle the locals. It is better than fighting two wars in the future. Muslim nations which have non-Muslim states right next to each other always find ways to fight them. This helps them take the focus away from issues in their countries and allows the dictators to strengthen their power hold. There is going to be no peace in the region so long as Pakistan’s current power sources are allowed to continue on the way they have been doing.

Kashmir settlement can be looked at if there is an assured guarantee that the neighborhood does not have the potential to rise another Jihad. One way that is possible is to separate Balochistan, Sindh and Pashtunistan from Pakistan and make it a much smaller country than it is today. This way it won’t be a such a menace and it will have more than one neighbor to deal with. It won’t interfere in Kashmir like it is doing now or in the recent past. It will also help get rid off the nukes from this country. If India has to give in somewhere, it also needs to take in somewhere else. A compromise solution should be to guarantee a safe existence for India.

Human rights etc are only a part of the whole picture. It is mostly a geo-political chess game. To lose a queen, sometimes one has to take out the rook, the horse and the bishop. That’s the way it works.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

777xxx777 said:

> I have a problem with word ‘rival’ in your thesis above. Why ‘rival’?? Why not ‘friends’??

The word ‘rival’ to me means not enmity but a race to the top. There could of course be friendship, trade and cooperation, but there will definitely be an element of competition as well. Whether one likes it or not, the people of South Asia have a shared identity in the eyes of the rest of the world. Racists in the UK call us all ‘Pakis’! No one would confuse someone from the subcontinent as being from China (with the possible exception of people from India’s Northeast).

The sooner we realise this and start to work together, the better. The ball is really in Pakistan’s court, not India’s. As long as people keep shouting “Kashmir first!”, it shows they haven’t really grasped this. Kashmir will *not* be settled first. India is now too strong and getting even stronger, and Pakistan is only getting weaker. Why would India negotiate on Kashmir now of all times? I’m sure New Delhi understands this and is tough even to ride out all inconveniences and embarrassments.

That doesn’t mean the Kashmir issue will never be settled. It means the Kashmir settlement will only come after peace is established, not before. If the Pakistanis are wise, they will pursue peace without the precondition of Kashmir.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

That should read ‘tough enough to ride out’

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive


I do not refute anything you say here, but I do think India needs to at least draw up initial dialogue of peace agreement with Pakistani’s. Fine, now Pakistan is not ready for peace with India.

But at least, the two need to get together and at least hammer out an agreement in principle. A living document outlining issues that both countries can agree on. That is at least a place to start. I am not talking some back door jibberish on a napkin hammered out by BJP and Mushie, I am talking something more politically out there, for people to contemplate and think on. All party committee, including both Armies and both civilian governments should make a commitment to steward to the end goal of the document, PEACE between Pakistan and India and FULL azadi for Kashmir, with full destruction of all militant camps and so-called charities.

Militant leaders must be jailed and put away for good, or given a job in Bollywood, since all they want is attention, anyway, why not put them in a movie or something and keep them employed? Sorry for the feeble attempt at humour there.

With regards to China, India neesd to leverage the U.S. to take some moral ground here and ask them to quit interfering in S. Asian politics. I know that they may not listen, given the U.S. presence in Taiwan.

If China has a territorial problem, then they should sit at the table and work out the boundary, based on mutually agreed details. Again, territorial peace with China needs to be addressed again in the form of a living document. There must be compromise on both sides.

The communists do have a coherent government to help steward in such a direction. But the Chinese have to understand it is unfair for them to hoard all of the strategic high ground north of India as it undermines the goodwill needed to generate peace, assuming they want peaceful relations with their neighbours.

Pakistani’s expect India to concede to every separatist minority in India, while they drown in their own vomit, every dispute including Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Maoists, Naxalites and others. With regards to internal matters, India must work harder to address social issues of concern to the minorities in India, if they want to strengthen their democracy. As a first action, this is the best thing India can do for peace with Pakistan and China, is strengthen its own democracy and become politically more coherent and reign in separatists by bringing more infrastructure development and jobs to those people.

With regards to jihad, Pakistan must reign all all its agents and state agencies and make them sign on the dotted line to cease and desist all clandestine militant operations against India, via Kashmir or otherwise. There has to be coherence and accountability on Pakistan’s State agencies and Governments, if they want to show a sincere desire for peace and if they sincerely want Azadi for kashmiri’s.

Silly Paks think if they keep working against India, they will get their own way. Why can’t they realize that if they make peace with India, militantism will not cancer up their country and India would be willing to be a much more forthcoming agent of re-development in pakistan.

I think India needs to take some leadership in this regards and outline to Pakistan, the incentives for peace with India.

Pakistani’s want to have their cake and eat it too, for far too long. They just don’t realize that they will greatly prosper and profit from peace.

With regards to kashmiri’s and minorities who feel subjugated by India, I ask them to look at the Sikh model. Sikhs suffered greatly under the Congress regime of the 80′s, but they took the higher road here and are one of the most respected and successful diaspora and definitely the most productive minority in India, in many ways, except IT. I am a little biased here, but minorities can excel and come up with hard work and perseverance. Fighting and putting energy into separatism brings only more violence and defeats the cause. It is better for all, to keep the family together. As a Hindu, to me, the Sikhs are lions of India and should serve as a model to all minorities that want to progress. There has to be a greater personal sense of responsibility and mission here. You can’t keep blaming others for all of your problems everyday.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive


Pakistani’s have the ability to shape Indian politics. If Pakistani’s sought a more peaceful stance with India, politically, right wing parties will not have favour in India, the votership will eventually start embracing more left leaning, conciliatory leaders.

I this regards, Pakistani’s must understand that they too have to start demanding peace from their government, army and from India too. Kashmir will be fixed easily if both make peace. Kashmir cannot be fixed with a peace agreement between Pindi and Delhi, not in a million years.

As long as Pindi boyz want to keep their business niche of keeping Paks stupid and using kashmiri militants against against India, Kashmiri’s will continue to live a seige existence from both Indians and Pakistani’s.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

typo, should read:

Kashmir cannot be fixed “without” a peace agreement between Pindi and delhi, not in a million years.

–>Peace agreement would outline the tenets for bilateral accountability wrt Kashmir.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

Too bad, no support for your vision from the Indian leaders? The whole idea becomes academic; I was almost prepared to follow your grand wish for peace and look for a geniune partner on the other side of the border.

I am sure peace and prosperity will follow once the people of the continent want peace and not war.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

Let us atleast try to have some clarity and some sense by addressing the names of the protoganists sitting in the Govts. of India and Pakistan, who are interested in War or Peace. What do you mean by peace agreement between Pindi and delhi? Has this subject been ever discussed by the respective Govts. of the two countries?

rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@Rex Minor,

That is the whole problem, no parties are talking. India is somewhat willing. Pakistan is not willing at all to talk, and if they do, simultaneously, there are jihadi’s crossing the LOC, hellbent on causing havoc in India. At the same time you got the Shah Mahmood Queraishis touting Pakistan as being a peaceful country.

The incoherence of this all has to stop. As manmohan singh said, if Pakistan wants peace, India will give more than its share of 50%.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

G-W: “With regards to kashmiri’s and minorities who feel subjugated by India, I ask them to look at the Sikh model. Sikhs suffered greatly under the Congress regime of the 80’s, but they took the higher road here and are one of the most respected and successful diaspora and definitely the most productive minority in India, in many ways, except IT. I am a little biased here, but minorities can excel and come up with hard work and perseverance. Fighting and putting energy into separatism brings only more violence and defeats the cause. It is better for all, to keep the family together. As a Hindu, to me, the Sikhs are lions of India and should serve as a model to all minorities that want to progress. There has to be a greater personal sense of responsibility and mission here. You can’t keep blaming others for all of your problems everyday.”

Thanks for your compliments to my community. I do not support Khalistan, though some of my relatives in Canada swear by it and are waiting for it to happen. To me, religion or ethnicity or language based states usually fall apart for lack of purpose once the first goal is achieved. Then the leaders engage in creating an enemy out of others to keep their people under their control. Such countries invariably ended up under dictatorships and failed as nations.

Nations cannot be made by emotional needs. They have to be made with practical reasons. Co-existence is the new world order. Any country that strives for that goal will advance towards a better future. There will be a lot of adjustments between various communities along the way. But the goal must be pursued. India, though its existence and experience over the past 60 years has shown that staying together is any time better than dividing up without an end. There are always affected groups in every community and nation.

What India has done is to focus the efforts towards economic progress and future prosperity for all. What Europeans have achieved over centuries, India has done it already – being a union. Most of our people have become used to the shared co-existence. I am free to move around anywhere in India and settle. I couldn’t do it, if I was stuck with a small country in a jungle of mini-countries. India-Pakistan division is bad enough and proof enough for me that such separations do no work and people work all the time to keep that separation alive, forgetting their important needs. My grandmother came from Gujranwala in Pakistan and she died never having a chance to visit her birthplace. Kargil war was going on at that time.

BTW, without us you guys will have no Sardarji jokes. That is our biggest contribution to make others laugh. Be grateful for that.

There is no dearth of painful memories for every community in India. Every one has a sad story to tell. So I’d prefer not to dwell in the past and look towards the future where my grandson is proud of being an Indian, living comfortably and thanking us all for making it happen. Let’s make the dream come true.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

Ganesh, If by ‘rival’ you meant a healthy competition with China then I agree with you but request you to please use unambiguous language as far as possible (and as well point out my language mistakes when I do) on an international blog like this. I am all for a healthy competition ALONG WITH a control over population. If population explosion continues then within a few blinks of eyes the healthy can become unhealthy.

KP: “There is no dearth of painful memories for every community in India. Every one has a sad story to tell. So I’d prefer not to dwell in the past and look towards the future where my grandson is proud of being an Indian, living comfortably and thanking us all for making it happen. Let’s make the dream come true”

Yes and we must all applaud KP for this forward looking attitude.

Rex, people like you on the other side of the border are the greatest roadblock on path of peace between India and Pakistan. First Pakistanis need to take care of so many Rex’s in their government agencies and then only we can move ahead.

G-W, If a child makes an unhealthy demand then should the parents accept just because child wants it? Do you think an independent Kashmir is good for Kashmiris in current world affairs? Think like a man and not child. First you make small small countries and then you make a union and create a common currency. I think India is already better.

Posted by 777xxx777 | Report as abusive

Sorry, mate, your ideas are good but no takers. You are sorrounded by loosers, more than fifty percent from a Prime Minister of a country is not good enough. You need people who offer 100 percent support for peace without any pre-conditions. Even on this blog you do not have the consence from your fellow citizens. Most of them are carrying a heavy baggage of the past.

I am sure that your words would not go wasted, the timing needs to be reset. Indians and Pakistanis have still the energy to march on without peace for another century.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

***On Kashmir independence, KPSingh’s statement “Nations cannot be made by emotional needs. They have to be made with practical reasons.” summarizes it.

“Even on this blog you do not have the consence from your fellow citizens. Most of them are carrying a heavy baggage of the past.”
***I think it is the fear of what will happen in future that is preventing the peace, not so much the past.

IN fact KPSingh, whose community suffered, has moved on and advises others to do the same. Instead you have mentioned Sikh issue umpteenth time, carrying baggage for Sikhs like a coolie as if they really need it. Same for Indian Muslims, perhaps not to that degree as yet. All such communities anywhere do not need to be reminded how deep is the wound, but understand their pain and help in healing it.

Your pessimism that Indians and Pakistanis are not peaceful is misplaced.

Also glance through the link below. People are as unhappy with atrocities against Kashmiris but not everyone suggests the same solution.

http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.php  ?option=com_content&view=article&id=595 9:deoband-conclave-says-kashmirs-future- lies-with-india&catid=3:regional-news&It emid=4

KPSingh: I share with no less passion GW’s views about Sikh bravery. For academic interest only, let me state that it was the Sikh bravery that PERHAPS delayed India;s independence because Sikhs did not join in the First war of independence in 1857, and supported British against the freedom fighters.


WE have heard Pakistan says “Kashmir banega Pakistan”
and India says “Kashmir is an integral part of India”
Basically it is the same thing. Does anyone know when did the latter happen (integral part) and what was immediate reaction of Kashmiris and the Kashmir situation at that time?

Posted by rehmat | Report as abusive

It is neither ignorance nor arrogance on my part, but I find it very hard on this blog to genuinely communicate my thoughts. If one would be prepared to accept a simple reality that both India and Pakistan are a century behind the European civilisation; then one could proceed further to catch up with the lost time(on account of colonisation of the land by the Brits( and make progress.

I have noticed that you have tried at times to reflect your thinking in my words. I cannot influence your attitude, for your baggage(not the one coolie carries) of the colonial past has probably still not left you completely. (It is not KPSingh’s doing that the sikhs did not act in 1857 against the Brits.)The answer to your thinking is very simple, both India and Pakistan Govts. were given a territory intact with the civil and military administrations. No serious reforms have been implemented as of this date and the military has been used in both countries, more often in Pakistan than in India to suppress the citizens of the land, for one or another reason.
A famous German politician once said that “what belongs together grows together”. His sayings were proven when the east and west germany became a one nation country.

What has happened in south Asia, after the exit of Brits, is the continued struggle for who belongs to whom, and as of this date, has not yet ended. Neither multiculti in India nor an religous and secular state in Pakistan has been successful. In the meantime, the so called leaders of two large territories have failed to change the colonial structure of the military, or to comletely reform the educational system. The world has witnessed the massacre of sikhs in India and the massacre or the genocide of Bengalis in former Pakistan territory. The atrocities of the military against the kashmiris and the Pashtoons are still in progress. These adventures are unlikely to end until the “Belonging” or in other words the question about the ‘identity’ of the people in this vast territory has been determined and accepted by the people themselves.
No wonder, the USA and Canada were the main destinations for the asylum seekers and other immigrents from india and Pakistan, which are the homes for a multi-culured immigrants.
My own views are that yes one must move on, but until there is a clarity of the purpose and some ground rules have been defined
and reforms undertaken, the military machinery is unlikely to stop.

Rex Minor
PS if you are of the opinion that India and Pakistan are peaceful countries then tell us the purpose of acquiring Nukes and missiles in their arsenal? For the museums or to overcome the “fear for what will happen in the future”, your words? Have a nice day.

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

Rex Minor:

“If one would be prepared to accept a simple reality that both India and Pakistan are a century behind the European civilisation; then one could proceed further to catch up with the lost time(on account of colonisation of the land by the Brits( and make progress”
***PLEASE begin to use 1. specific names of the country- Europe as a continent is as vague as bundling India and Pakistan together. 2. In which areas are you comparing. 3. May be you start comparing countries in Europe itself and you will find one 100 years behind the other.

Until then I do not buy which country are you comparing India (and Pakistan too) with. Compared to I cannot agree to the number (a century) but there is no denying in several areas India lacks behind some European countries.
@European Civilization! Let us not even go there!

India is definitely behind in several areas if compared with Britain or Germany or France.

while you are at it, make a comparison of Europe with the USA now.

“No serious reforms have been implemented as of this date and the military has been used in both countries, more often in Pakistan than in India to suppress the citizens of the land, for one or another reason.”
***I would make use of the following article to give you a glimpse of what you have been missing. I tell you that there are lots similarities between India and Pakistan, but India has been undergoing reforms.

http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/when-it-co mes-to-education-pakistan-can-learn-demo cracy-from-india/1370/

Do read the comments also.

“The world has witnessed the massacre of sikhs in India and the massacre or the genocide of Bengalis in former Pakistan territory.”
***who orchestrated these massacres, btw?

“PS if you are of the opinion that India and Pakistan are peaceful countries then tell us the purpose of acquiring Nukes and missiles in their arsenal? For the museums or to overcome the “fear for what will happen in the future”, your words?”
***i thought you meant people from each country so I said people from both countries are peaceful.
Well, India acquired nukes because China acquired. Post 1962 india-china war scenario. After India acquired, Pakistan acquired. Nukes are deterrent and my view has been that no one in the world will use on a country which already has nukes.

“No wonder, the USA and Canada were the main destinations for the asylum seekers and other immigrents from india and Pakistan, which are the homes for a multi-culured immigrants.”
***Agreed. Well, India has been home to asylum seekers from Tibet–count those Lamas. India also has accepted Muslim artists from Pakistan who were suffering under military rule. Nothing to belittle anyone—just plain hard facts.
BTW, the USA is land of immigrants to begin with and more accepting/tolerant to outsiders than Europeans.It is filled with people of all kinds, including Europeans and Chinese.

PS: Do a quick survey and find the differences between India and Pakistan.

Land reforms, education reforms, economic reforms and green revolution has happened in India not Pakistan. India produces double the amount of wheat for the same land area for example. You will stop clubbing them together. India still has that colonial structure but do not miss the positives. This is not going to be big bang, this is a slow gradual change and it is happening. Just develop antennas to detect positive changes.

have a wonderful day!

Posted by rehmat | Report as abusive

When you have found that your Prime Minister is prepared for peace talks on Kashmir, without any pre-conditions(your words), a leader on the other side would be ready to meet him.
The rest is larifari.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

The only pre-condition, I ask, is that if Pakistan wants Azadi for Kashmiri’s, that they vacate and leave their portion of Kashmir alone too.

Pakistan cannot swallow up all of kashmir for itself, never going to happen!

For India to not force conditions on talks, Pakistan must do the same and be a fair handed partner in peace.

Kashmir discussion cannot be one sided for pro-muslim empirical expansionary purposes. They can only happen, if both parties will give up their respective portions of Kashmir to all Kashmiri’s to have their own country.

What do you think, should Pakistan be willing to vacate Kashmir, if India is? I am curious what parties think here.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive

So I interpretted your thoughts! Let India and Pakistan vacate the Kashmir.
You try and get the Indian Faqir on board, and he would have the right partner. Never mind whether Pakistan leaders are willing or not. No one can stand in the way of peace.

Both India and Pakistan should support the independence project(no pre-conditions, your words). This would be the classic move for peace since both countries are very much interdependent on peace in the continent, wheather they like it or not.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

I had no intention to get into arguements, which of the two countries has more positives or more negatives. And I fully agree with your positives,however, let me draw your attention to the article( written by Ibrahim..) you referred to make my point, and I quote the following:
1, An emancipatory education of the oppressed involves a dismanling of colonial structures and ideologies( Paulo Freire)

2. Anti-colonial and modern education for native population, a humanistic society alone can truly be an anti-colonial society(Frantz Fanon).

Now tell me, how far the colonial structures and the ideologies have been dismantled or eliminated?
. military, one hundred prcent colonial structure in both countries,
.education, humanistic or racists structures in India, not in Pakistan, though the system is more or less the same. Never mind the disparity of number of higher education institutions etc. among the two countries. some Pakistani bloggers do not agree with the assessment in the article.

It is my opinion that neither the Congress party nor the Muslim league party wanted the separaion of the two people as such, but simply separate autonomous regions, one for muslims and one for others, the sikh community was not organised and had a could’nt careless attitude, no different than today’s. Now, here is my thesis, had the sikh community asked for an autonomous home state for their majority areas, the outcome would have been more peaceful and not divisive.( please do not tell me that I am carrying a sikh load, and I have to remind the readers without any prejudice that the indian territory has also witnessed sikh rule.

Ofcourse, the colonialist brits were too happy to leave the country in as many divisions as possible, not allowing the peeople to decide but the sultans and Maharajas were given the fate of the slaves.

In other words leave the land as they found them.
What the people of the land made out of the partition is a shabby tale and proves simply that had it not been agreed among the ww2 Powers about the decolonisation of the British empire, the Brits could have continued for another century to be the masters of today’s India and Pakistan.

A good day sir.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@you said India racist and Pakistan not..and then you say “I had no intention to get into arguements, which of the two countries has more positives or more negatives.”
***ON that note, I am off from this discussion. Reason being you are unaware of the changes and want nothing short of big bang. comparisons are made for understanding not to belittle anyone.

BTW that weblink was by a Pakistani. He knows what Pakistan needs so I care less about anyone who is remote from the real scenario.
see ya later.

Posted by rehmat | Report as abusive


Refer Kashmir in public? Why?! Should Manmohan ask Obama about the Alaska secessionist party in public? What nonsense write up is this?

Posted by NPegasus | Report as abusive